It added that the police investigation was carried out quickly and efficiently, using legal means to determine the conduct of the suspects. The State argued that it had offered an effective judicial response to the facts considered to be violations of the rights of Márcia Barbosa’s next of kin, inasmuch as the then deputy Aércio Pereira de Lima was convicted in September 2007, but did not serve his sentence only due to his death in February of 2008, which was an event beyond its control. As for the other defendants, it alleged that there was a diligent investigation, but that the prosecutor in charge of the case understood that there was insufficient evidence of their participation, so he requested that the police investigation file be closed due to lack of evidence. It affirmed that the mechanism of parliamentary immunity was not used in order to unreasonably obstruct or delay the investigation. It indicated that the amendment of the constitutional provision in 2001, related to parliamentary immunity, is fully consistent with Article 2 of the American Convention and, therefore, the State adapted its domestic laws on this matter within a reasonable time. It explained that procedural parliamentary immunity merely implies the suspension of the determination of responsibility for a possible crime until the conclusion of the electoral mandate or the granting of authorization by the corresponding Parliamentary Chamber, and that, during that period, the statute of limitations of the crime is also suspended. Regarding the matter of reasonable time, it pointed out that the judicial procedure for intentional crimes against life is more complex. and therefore takes a little longer. In this regard, it argued that, in the present case, said procedure was duly observed and that all procedural guarantees were respected. Thus, the criminal action followed its regular course within a reasonable period. It further argued that there is no information to the effect that the representatives or the alleged victims have questioned the legitimacy of the criminal proceedings before the domestic judicial or administrative courts. B. Considerations of the Court 98. Taking into consideration the arguments presented by the parties and the Commission, as well as the facts of the case and the evidence in the case file, the Court will now refer to: 1) the alleged wrongful application of parliamentary immunity; 2) the alleged lack of due diligence in the investigation of the other suspects; 3) the alleged violation of the guarantee of reasonable time; 4) the alleged use of gender stereotypes in the investigations; and 5) conclusion. B.1 The alleged wrongful application of parliamentary immunity 99. Bearing in mind that this is the first time that this Court will analyze the application of parliamentary immunity within the framework of the right of access to justice and the reinforced obligation to investigate with due diligence, it is pertinent to make some general observations on the aforementioned mechanism and then examine its application in this specific case. a. Concept and regulation of parliamentary immunity 100. Parliamentary immunity is a mechanism designed to guarantee the independence of -30-